Risk and patterns of recurrence for patients (pts) with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) metastatic to liver after response to enfortumab vedotin + pembrolizumab (EVP).
4584 Background: EVP is the preferred frontline regimen in pts with aUC. Despite initial response to treatment, many pts treated with EVP ultimately have progression. We hypothesized that recurrence patterns would differ between pts with and without baseline liver metastases. Methods: UNITE is a multi-institutional retrospective database capturing clinical and treatment characteristics of pts with aUC receiving systemic therapies. We queried this database to identify pts who achieved an observed response (OR) to EVP. Pts were grouped by initial metastatic sites using a non-mutually exclusive approach. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize observed response rates (ORR) and recurrence patterns at time of progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) from start of EVP was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of liver metastases on PFS was assessed via multivariable Cox regression. Median-follow up time was estimated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were conducted in RStudio. Results: We identified 464 pts treated with EVP (median age 72; 74% male, 80% White). Best ORR in pts with baseline liver metastases (n=77) were complete response 9%, partial response 35%, stable disease 18%, and progressive disease 21%, compared with 18%, 37%, 27%, and 18%, respectively, in pts without baseline liver metastases (n=325). The estimated median follow-up time was 52 weeks (95% CI 48-62). Among pts with initial OR to EVP, those with baseline liver metastases showed a non-significant trend toward shorter PFS (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.67–2.75; p=0.40) versus those without baseline liver metastases. Among pts with initial OR to EVP and subsequent progression the distribution of sites of recurrences at progression for those with (n = 10) and without (n = 40) baseline liver metastases were: liver (50% vs. 10%), lymph nodes (60% vs. 55%), lungs (50% vs. 38%), bone (20% vs 20%), and primary tumor (20% vs 25%). EVP responders with baseline liver metastases had a numerically higher rate of site-specific metastasis resolution at progression versus those with lymph node or lung metastases (Table). Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that liver metastases may be associated with shorter PFS among EVP responders, though these pts frequently do not retain liver metastases at time of progression. Study limitations include retrospective analysis, investigator-assessed response, small sample size, selection and confounding biases. Patterns of recurrence following EVP merits further evaluation. Metastatic Site Pts with Site-Specific Baseline Metastases (n) Pts with Resolution of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Pts without Baseline Metastases at Site (n) Pts who Remained Free of Site-Specific Metastases at Progression, n (%) Liver 10 5 (50%) 40 36 (90%) Lymph Nodes 37 12 (32%) 13 10 (77%) Lungs 26 8 (31%) 24 22 (92%)
Authors
- Irene Tsung (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9105-8659)
- Cindy Jiang (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2459-1875)
- Ali Raza Khaki (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4655-4426)
- Eugene Oh (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6350-1422)
- Vadim S. Koshkin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2277-8668)
- Tanya Jindal (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5954-3278)
- Albert Jang (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6375-4550)
- Jason Robert Brown (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6225-7555)
- Charles B. Nguyen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1898-5501)
- Zhengyi Chen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4774-945X)
- Dimitra Bakaloudi
- Zachariah Thomas
- Jeffrey Yinhong Zhong
- Rishi Raju Patel
- Salvador Jamie Casas
- Fu P
- Omar Alhalabi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9658-2206)
- M Campbell
- Petros Grivas
- Abhishek Tripathi
Institutions
- Cape Town HVTN Immunology Laboratory / Hutchinson Centre Research Institute of South Africa (ZA)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- University Hospitals of Cleveland (US)
- Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
- City of Hope (US)
- Michigan Center for Translational Pathology (US)
- University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center (US)
- Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
- University School (US)
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
- Case Western Reserve University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2026-05-27
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.4584
- Primary Topic
- Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00